Considering the film grossed over $100 million this past weekend, im assuming that everyone here saw it.

Anyways I gave this film a B+. I saw it in IMAX 3D and the visuals were spectacular. Being a Tim Burton fan, I loved seeing his work come to life and really pop out at the audience. In fact, I enjoyed the 3D in this film more than I did in Avatar. And I think it has something to do with the fact that 3D just works better in more cartoonish environments. But that's debatable.

The directing was superb as expected (but then again, I'm a bit biased). And although Depp was good, Helena Bohem Carter really takes the show. She was perfect for her role. So perfect, that she outshines everyone else in the cast. Except for Alan Rickman of course. That man is the shit no matter what he does.

The story however is so-so and the dialogue is passable (but not really all that interesting). I hate to repeat the critics, but the whole thing really does seem very similar to the Lord of the Rings / Narnia. And since we've seen those movies, Alice in Wonderland is very predictable. As with Depp's role, I felt the whole thing could have been a lot better. Then again maybe I was expecting a bit too much.

I think I'm also at the point where I'm tired of seeing Burton recreate other films / stories. I wish he would come up with his own story, characters, setting, etc and film it.

So overall, definitely go see the movie in theatres. It's well worth your money- but make sure to put those 3d glasses on  (no matter how gimmicky it may seem).

oh and the Cheshire Cat was awesome. i was really happy with his animation and the way he floated towards you.

and one last thing which i forgot to include. what the fuck was up with that Mad Hatter dance at the end of the film? god awful...and i mean GOD AWFUL. it was so inappropriate, so pointless, so childish, and so stupid- it rivals Peter Parker's emo dance in Spiderman 3.

I liked it, but it wasn't a movie that was supposed to make you think. I know critics didn't like it...at all, but I found it quite enjoyable.

You are correct. Helena Bonham Carter was great. I crack up each time I think about her screaming "FATBOYS!" and then her giggle at them was hilarous. She was great.

Was the actress playing Alice a newcomer? I can't remember. I did like her, though.

Johnny Depp was great as the Mad Hatter, but it was almost like the was just being Willy Wonka with different dialogue. His stupid dance ruined his character, for me. It really killed the movie and made it feel childish and I think that's why the critics didn't like it.

The animation was superb, and the 3D was much more fun that the 2D (I saw it in both).

Quoted from bangston_15 His stupid dance ruined his character, for me.

I find it amusing that his dance is mentioned in almost every review I've read.  

Quoted Text I find it amusing that his dance is mentioned in almost every review I've read.

And it should be. its THAT bad

And then Alice does it, too.  But you can't say that it wasn't expected... he and the Hare talk about how good he was at the first tea party scene. It only makes sense that he'll do it later.

I think Disney should've paid Burton to make the third Narnia movie because ALICE IN WONDERLAND is basically the same plot as NARNIA, THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE and it even has some of the same imagery.

Alice riding the big white dog thing was just like Lucy riding Aslan.

Having FINALLY seen Alice in Wonderland in 3D IMAX, I thought it was well done. overall I give it a 7.5 out of 10. I love Tim Burton he's a great director and his style always interested me. The thing I loved is he took the old tale and put that Burton feel to it, which made it even more interesting. However, the damned Anne Hathaway made me nearly leave the theatre. I hated her in it, which means she didn't do her job well ( seeing as how shes supposed to be the righteous and beautiful queen). I know it was a fairy tale and all and that The White Queen had to have that queenish feel to her but "PUT YOUR DAMN HANDS DOWN ALREADY!". It bugged the crap out of me how fake she felt in the roll.

Johnny Depp was great as usual, the so called "dance" pissed me off. It was being all different and then he starts break dancing?...?...Anyway I was really taken away by Mia Wasikowska. She played a brilliant Alice, so much so I think I may have fallen in love with her...The way they made the Knave of Knights bugged me too, simply because every time he took a step or a motion he looked too fake even for CGI. I realize he was walking on stilts the whole time but it still bothered me. Helen Carter did a great job too although I only really liked her in Fight Club.

Popping in for a rare appearance to give my thoughts on this flick. I thought it was alright. There was some lame cutesy stuff but that's inevitable in a family film like this. I also made a point of watching Johnny Depp's dance beforehand so it wouldn't ruin it for me although I do think it's worse in the movie because there's so much buildup to it. Anne Hatheway was kinda lame but only because she's a good actress and was really squandered here. If they'd gotten Eva Mendas or something, I probably wouldn't have thought anything of the performance. The only thing that really bothered me was the feeling that a lot of the characters were just making appearances because it was an Alice in Wonderland film and really had nothing to do with the plot. I also didn't get what was up with Johnny Depp switching between Scottish and normal accents. WTF?

So a pretty mixed bag for me but I've become used to this with Tim Burton. Since Big Fish, he seems to deliver what's expected and nothing more, really. He just gives the audience what they want and leaves it at that. Only Sweeney Todd feels like an exception. Kinda sad, really, but that's okay, I suppose. His style is still ever apparent and I do think it's cool that he's using more color in his films. You really can't expect another Edward Scissorhands at this stage.

I thought it was just about OK at best.

The visuals were great. The Cheshire Cat was good..other than that it was disappointing. The story was non-existent and a bizarre amalgamation of the Alice and the Chronicles of Narnia.

Could have been good if Burton had made it many years ago. As it was it was a very child freindly Disney movie and just didn't hold much interest.

I just finished watching this a couple of hours ago, courtesy of Blockbuster and T-Mobile's Big Night In deal. I also picked out An Education, which I've heard good things about, and will watch and review tomorrow.

I'd rate this one as marginally better than okay. Not Burton's best work, and not an incredible film, mind. As a big fan of the original book (and NOT the crappy Disney cartoon) I actually enjoyed the way they toyed around with the original story, turning Carroll's nonsense poetry into hardcore prophecy. I kind of geeked out when they first mentioned the vorpal sword...guess that might just have been me. I'd have been disappointed if most of the characters didn't make an appearance, although I did miss the Mock Turtle and the Lobster. And Humpty Dumpty. But then you can't have everything, eh? Also, by that point things might have started to get a tad crowded...

I thought it was actually very well-cast, which isn't that surprising when you're a director of Burton's reputation and get to cast anyone you like (or, more accurately, just re-cast the people you know and trust). Johnny Depp brought an enjoyable pathos to a role that could have just been a disposable comedy character - although his accent did lapse into Sparrow-mode, particularly with the 'letter m' line. I almost expected him to go 'Savvy?' at that point. And yes, the dance was silly, but not unforgiveably so. I mean, I don't quite understand what they were thinking, but I'm willing to chalk it down as a mis-judged 'moment for the kiddies'. I won't rattle through the rest of the cast, but will just say that I don't neccessarily think Anne Hathaway was wasted, as such - as Alice might say her part wasn't 'much of a muchness', but she did what was asked and did it well. Everyone pulled their weight, in fact, and the girl playing Alice managed to lead the thing without looking lightweight or out of her depth, which is impressive if you consider she's a complete unknown heading up a cast of seasoned, experienced, respected actors (and Matt Lucas).

The visuals, as one would expect from Burton, were intricate and striking. The man has a strong identity in the way he makes his films look, and that's at work here. I watched this on DVD, so obviously it was 2D, but I'm not sure if that made much difference. There were obvious 'things flying out at you' 3D moments that just looked a bit silly on a flat picture, and while I'm not really against 3D I do think there's a problem if it impairs the film's enjoyment-value when you come to watch it at home, but that's really just a side issue. The Chesire Cat was well done, and I liked the flashback to a lighter, more colourful time, a trick he also used in Sweeney Todd. They were a strong part of the film, although I do wonder if I'm starting to suffer from Burton-fatigue - industrial, dirty, smoggy England, characters with pale, gaunt faces and dark eyes...Tim, you've brought me here before. And while I always enjoy myself, have you not got anything else? Anyway, I'll get back to that in a moment.

Because first I want to talk about the plot. Clearly, the original book is completely unfilmable. It's as much nonsense in its structure as it is in the language. At first, I was excited that Burton was gonna have a go - after all, he's exactly the right guy to take the project on, apart from perhaps del Toro. When I found out he wasn't actually doing that at all, but coming up with his own story and just using the same characters, I was disappointed, but eventually decided it was the right decision. Burton himself said he had to come up with a plot, because he just didn't feel any strong narrative or emotional connection with Carroll's original. I can only assume with the CGI work and 3-D conversion, he just forgot to actually do that. It really is a weird re-hash of TCON:TLTWATW, with elements of LOTR (the flailing, headless Jabberwocky looked exactly like the Nazgul from LOTR:ROTK) and other movies thrown in.

It just never felt like there was any sense of direction. Alice got small, Alice got big. A character went here, a character went there. Now, you could argue this was deliberate - a nod to the book's nonsense heritage, perhaps, or the characters being like pawns on the chessboard where the final battle is fought. But ultimately, it failed to provide the kind of emotional connection Tim Burton said he was striving for. The big climax at the end - the final battle - was surprisingly flat. The stakes never, at any point, felt particularly high; Alice dismissed it as a dream for most of the film, and even when she finally realised it was all real (those twisted snapshots of the original book were a great sequence) there was still no sense that anyone was in any kind of danger. When I saw The Princess and the Frog a few months ago I remembered just how sad children's films can sometimes be, and how much more uplifting that makes the final triumphant conclusion; all of that was missing here. Emotionally, this was as flat and lifeless as the landscape presented onscreen.

So, when all's said and done, I'd still probably put this just above okay. That's really just because I'm a fan of everyone involved - Johnny Depp can do no wrong in my eyes, although he came close to it in POTC:ATW (where he was completely over-used). It was, essentially, a decent Tim Burton film. And that's actually the problem. Because as much as I admire Burton and his work, and I think this will slide neatly into his oeuvre, I think he needs a bit of a shake-up. Rather than him 'Burtonifying' older, established works - Dahl, Sondheim, now Carroll - I'd rather he went back into his own imagination and came up with something new and exciting. He makes the films people expect him to make, which is surprisingly ordinary for a man with such an extraordinary sense of visuals. He's definitely a great film-maker, and one of the most individualistic around. But it's as if someone gave Salvador Dali a bunch of classical paintings and said: "Go on, play around with those", rather than him coming up with his own stuff.

So yeah - all in all, it was a solid Burton film, and definitely worth a watch. It was an interesting, solidly-made adaptation of a classic book, but that's probably all it was.